The court's decision emphasized the admissibility of interest on delayed payments of retiral benefits, the erroneous rejection of the Review Application, and the upheld penal rate on TA/DA advance.

( 1 ) THE petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 19/02/1999 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi in original Application No. 636/97. In this Original application the petitioner had primarily prayed for grant of interest on delayed payments of GPF , CGEIGIS, dcrg, provisional pension, leave salary and leave encashment. He had also sought for directions to the respondents to quash penal rate of interest imposed upon him in regard to the TA/da advance taken by him while in service and also to make corrections in his half pay leave account. It may be stated at this stage that the petitioner had served notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 (A) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and on expiry of this notice period, he sought the release of his retiral benefits which were not allowed. He accordingly approached the learned Tribunal at that time also by filing Original Application No. 1764/90 which was disposed of by an order dated 17/05/1994, inter alia, directing the respondents to release the petitioner his terminal dues. The precise directions contained in the said order dated 17/05/1994 are to the following effect:

" (I) We declare that the applicant shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service w. e. f. 2. 5. 90 under the provisions of Rule 48-A of the C. C. S. Pension Rules, 1972 and that, therefore, he is entitled to pensionary benefits on that basis. (ii) As a disciplinary proceeding is pending against the applicant, the benefit of provisional pension shall be granted to him in accordance with the provisions of rule 9 and rule 69 of the C. C. S. Pension rules within three months from the date. of receipt of this order. (iii)The prayer to quash the disciplinary proceeding is dismissed and, therefore, the interim order is vacated. The respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible. "

( 2 ) AFTER the aforesaid directions of the learned tribunal, the petitioner was released his terminal benefits. However, as he had also demanded interest on the delayed payments which was not granted. The original Application No. 636/97 was filed. The learned tribunal, in the impugned judgment, allowed the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on GPF upto 30/11/1994 to be calculated as per the rules, 12 per cent per annum on Gratuity and 12 per cent per annum on leave encashment.

( 3 ) HIS request for grant of interest on arrears of pension was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had made same plea in the earlier Original application and as no relief was granted in the earlier original Application it was deemed to have been rejected the petitioner was barred from re-agitating the same question of interest on delayed payment of pension. Likewise the petitioner s request for grant of interest on DCRG was also rejected holding that under Rule 68 of Rules, interest was not permissible.

( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in charging penal rate on his outstanding TA/da advance was rejected holding that the respondents were perfectly right in deducting the penal rate as per rules and to deduct the same from his leave salary/leave encashment payments.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed a Review Application which was marked as RA No. 89/99 seeking review of the aforesaid judgment dated 19/02/1999. In this review Application the petitioner pointed out that some of the reliefs claimed by him in his amended Original application were not taken into consideration and dealt with in the impugned judgment and he, inter alia, prayed for that the respondents be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to him on delayed payment of GPF, CGEGIS, DCRG, provisional pension, leave salary and leave encashment. This review Application was rejected vide order dated 10th june, 1999, inter alia, observing as under:

"i find that the Tribunal had ment